Is Trump Going To Bomb The Shit Out Of Everyone?

A few days ago, Alex Kane wrote a post for In These Times, Here’s Exactly Who’s Profiting from the War on Yemen. As the poverty-stricken Yemenis and their children die, "U.S. arms merchants have grown rich." In one horrific bombing attack, "fragments of the bombs were documented by journalists and HRW with help from Mastaba villagers. An HRW munitions expert determined the bombs were 2,000-pound MK-84s, manufactured by General Dynamics. Based in Falls Church, Virginia, General Dynamics is the world’s sixth most profitable arms manufacturer. One of the bombs used a satellite guidance kit from Chicago-based Boeing, the world’s second-most profitable weapons company. The other bomb had a Paveway guidance system, made by either Raytheon of Waltham, Massachusetts., the third-largest arms company in the world, or Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Maryland, the world’s top weapons contractor. An In These Times analysis found that in the past decade, the State Department has approved at least $30.1 billion in Saudi military contracts for these four companies."

The war in Yemen has been particularly lucrative for General Dynamics, Boeing and Raytheon, which have received hundreds of millions of dollars in Saudi weapons deals. All three corporations have highlighted business with Saudi Arabia in their reports to shareholders. Since the war began in March 2015, General Dynamics’ stock price has risen from about $135 to $169 per share, Raytheon’s from about $108 to more than $180, and Boeing’s from about $150 to $360.

Lockheed Martin declined to comment for this story. A spokesman for Boeing said the company follows “guidance from the United States government,” while Raytheon replied, “You will need to contact the U.S. government.” General Dynamics did not respond to inquiries. The State Department declined to comment on the record.

The weapons contractors are correct on one point: They’re working hand-in-glove with the State Department. By law, the department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs must approve any arms sales by U.S. companies to foreign governments. U.S. law also prohibits sales to countries that indiscriminately kill civilians, as the Saudi-led military coalition bombing Yemen did in the Mastaba strike and many other documented cases. But ending sales to Saudi Arabia would cost the U.S. arms industry its biggest global customer, and to do so, Congress must cross an industry that pours millions into the campaigns of lawmakers of both parties.

...Saudi Arabia’s precision-guided munitions are responsible for the vast majority of deaths documented by human rights groups. In These Times found that, since 2009, Saudi Arabia has ordered more than 27,000 missiles worth at least $1.8 billion from Raytheon alone, plus 6,000 guided bombs from Boeing (worth about $332 million) and 1,300 cluster munitions from Rhode Island-based Textron (worth about $641 million).

About $650 million of those Raytheon orders and an estimated $103 million of the Boeing orders came after the Saudi war in Yemen began.

The ink was barely dry before $500 million of the deal was threatened by a bill, introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in May 2017, to block the sale of bombs to Saudi Arabia. In response, Boeing and Raytheon hired lobbying firms to make their case.

In the end, five Democrats-- Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Joe Manchin (WV), Bill Nelson (FL) and Mark Warner (VA)-- broke with their party to ensure arms sales continued, in a 53-47 vote. [Donnelly, McCaskill and Nelson were subsequently all defeated for reelection due to low-than-expected Democratic turnout in their races.] The five had collectively received tens of thousands in arms industry donations, and would receive another $148,032 in the next election cycle from the PACs and employees of Boeing and Raytheon. Nelson and McCaskill pulled in $44,308 and $57,230, respectively. Weapons firms are aided by a revolving door with the Trump administration. Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a former General Dynamics board member, warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that the Rand Paul bill would be a boon for Iran. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan served as a senior vice president of Boeing prior to coming to the Defense Department, though it’s unclear whether he’s championed U.S.-Saudi arms deals.

...This spring, the Senate and House passed a bill championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) requiring the United States to stop giving the Saudi coalition intelligence and to prohibit the in-air refueling of Saudi warplanes. It was the first time in U.S. history that both chambers of Congress invoked the War Powers Act, designed to check the president’s war-making powers by requiring congressional authorization to deploy troops overseas. Trump vetoed the bill on April 16.

We asked Ro Khanna, who-- with Bernie Sanders-- put so much effort into getting Congres to pass bipartisan legislation to prevent Trump from doing exactly this, what he thought about this newest developments. This is what he said, in a written statement, last night:

Every bomb sold to Saudi Arabia is another bomb for Saudi bomber jets to drop on Yemeni hospitals, weddings, markets, and school buses. President Trump’s claim that selling weapons to Saudi Arabia constitutes an ‘emergency’ is a farcical attempt to obscure the shameful reality that ‘made in the U.S.A’ bombs are killing innocent civilians and fueling the world’s worst humanitarian crises in Yemen.

If this happens, the Trump admin. is resorting to the most desperate of measures out of concern they don’t have the votes in Congress to approve such arms sales. The historic passage of the bipartisan and bicameral Yemen War Powers Resolution highlights that congressional opposition to U.S. backing for the Saudi-led coalition’s barbaric war continues to grow.

Congress must seize every available opportunity to stop the delivery and transfer of bombs to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other coalition countries for their barbaric war in Yemen. Through this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Appropriations bill, and other forms of legislation, I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and with peace and humanitarian groups to stop bomb sales and end all forms of U.S. participation in this war.

And now what? Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) was speaking for many Democrats (and some Republicans) when he warned this week that the Trump Regime (Bolton) is considering a move to bypass Congress and push through the sale of bombs to Saudi Arabia by declaring a national security emergency. "I am hearing that Trump may use an obscure loophole in the Arms Control Act and notice a major new sale of bombs to Saudi Arabia (the ones they drop in Yemen) in a way that will prevent Congress from objecting. Arms control law allows Congress to reject a sale to a foreign country. But Trump would claim the sale constitutes an ‘emergency’ which means Congress can't take a vote of disapproval. It would go through automatically."

Jim Himes (D-CT) is a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research. He's closely allied with Murphy and he told me yesterday that "By any standard, the Saudi-led war on Yemen is a moral disgrace. Congress spoke loud and clear on the matter and despite his veto, the President would be wise not to thumb his nose at the Congress or at basic standards of decency."

Directly across the Long Island Sound from Murphy's and Himes' constituencies, Tom Suozzi is the congressman for most of northern Long Island. He was revolted by the same things Murphy was warning about. "Awful," he told me this morning. "There is an unmitigated humanitarian disaster of epic proportions taking place in Yemen. We should not be supplying weapons to the Saudi’s to make things worse. More important, the president cannot act as though he is a sole proprietor who can act based upon his sole discretion. He is the chief executive of a nation governed by a constitution that requires him to work with the Congress in matters involving federal funds (which is just about everything) and actions that involve war powers."

Himes and Suozzi are both New Dems and both Pelosi supporters. But I get the feeling that little by little, their support for her "no impeachment diktat" is beginning to crumble. If she loses backers like Tom Suozzi and Jim Himes, she's on her own with Steny Hoyer, a bunch of Californians and Hakeem Jeffries.

Mike Siegel is running for Congress in gerrymandered district that goes from Austin the the Houston exurbs. The incumbent is Trump rubber stamp Michael McCaul, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Relations Committee-- and Trump's partner in enabling the genocide in Yemen. Since first being elected, McCaul has taken $478,100 from weapons makers. This cycle alone, McCaul has already taken $128,000 from arms manufacturers. He backs all of Trump's worst policies. Siegel, who came close to defeating him in 2018 pointed out that "Trump's threat to ignore Congress and facilitate the continuing massacre in Yemen is unconscionable and unconstitutional. I pray that Republicans and Democrats alike will take decisive action to ensure that the United States is not aiding and abetting war crimes."

Since 2012 Northrop Grumman has spent $32,163,165 bribing members of Congress with legalistic campaign contributions. Last cycle, the top recipients in the House (among those still saving in Congress) were:

• Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)- $42,010
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)- $30,850
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)- $25,400
• Jim Langevin (D-RI)- $23,800
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $23,475
• Devin Nunes (R-CA)- $22,004
• Matha Roby (R-AL)- $22,000
• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $21,400
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)- $20,042

Boeing has spent nearly the same amount on legalistic congressional bribes-- $32,578,312 since 2012. And this past cycle the top recipients in the House were:

• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)- $31,250
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $27,690
• Debbie Dingell (D-MI)- $17,900
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $17,025
• Martha Roby (R-AL)- $15,500
• Vicky Harzler (R-MO)- $15,400
• John Katko (R-NY)- $15,400
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $15,400

Since 2012 Lockheed Martin's congressional bribery bill has been more: $39,683,044. Top recipients in the House last cycle were:

• Kay Granger (R-TX)- $131,940
• Pete Visclosky (New Dem-IN)- $49,800
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $20,400
• John Carter (R-TX)- $17,500
• Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)- $17,500
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $17,000
• John Larson (D-CT)- $16,200
• Martha Roby (R-AL)- $15,000

Congressional bribes from General Dynamics since 2012 amounted to $23,530,163. Top recipients among House members:

• Jim Langevin (D-RI)- $41,000
• Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)- $35,400
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)- $20,700
• Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $16,800
• Pete Visclosky (New Dem-IN)- $16,000
• Tom Graves (R-GA)- $15,400
• Martha Roby (R-AL)- $15,000

Last, but not least, comes Raytheon, which spent $26,268,302 in congressional bribes since 2012. Last cycle, their biggest recipients in the House were:

• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $36,900
• Richard Neal (R-MA)- $31,650
• Martha Roby (R-TX)- $16,700
• Pete Visclosky (New Dem-IN)- $13,700
• Jim Langevin (D-RI)- $13,250
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- $13,010
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)- $12,720

UPDATE: Murphy Was Right!

Disregarding the Constitution, Trump invoked a nonsensical "emergency" to sell billions of dollars of advanced weapons to the Saudis and the Emeratis. According to CNN, Pompeo formally told lawmakers Friday of the administration's plans. The overwhelming response on Capitol Hill was anger. "Once again the Trump Administration is subverting the constitutional authority of Congress," Ted Lieu told me today. "An overwhelming bipartisan bicameral message was sent that Congress opposes further U.S. support of the Saudi coalition in the war in Yemen. This includes the sale of munitions to be used in that conflict. Congress has a legitimate role to play in approving foreign arms sales-- and now the Trump Administration seeks to override Congress and sell advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia anyway."

Trump, Flynn, Putin, The Golden Showers-- Why Members of Congress Are Demanding Trump Fire Flynn

Friday, two progressive Democrats who served in the military and are especially concerned about National Security issues, Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), demanded Trump fire his scandal-plagued National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. They pointed out in a joint statement that "Flynn sought to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting American President.  And then he lied-- repeatedly and egregiously-- about his actions. Donald Trump should fire Michael Flynn immediately. Flynn communicated with high-ranking Russian officials both before and after a presidential election that, according to our intelligence community, Russia actively worked to influence on behalf of Donald Trump.  When President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia in response to its unprecedented efforts to disrupt our democracy, Flynn made a series of phone calls to the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, offering assurances that the incoming administration would lift these measures after Trump was sworn-in. General Flynn then compounded this outrageous misconduct by lying on multiple occasions about the nature of his conversations with Kislyak, claiming that sanctions had never been discussed. Not only did Flynn mislead Congress and the American people, he also apparently deceived Vice President Mike Pence, who made false statements on Flynn’s behalf in an interview with Face the Nation."

The two congressmen concluded by pointing out that "at a minimum, Flynn recklessly violated the sacred principle that America only has one president at a time. But a compelling case can also be made that Flynn violated federal law by collaborating with foreign officials while still a private citizen. The American people deserve competence-- not corruption-- from the leaders entrusted with our national security. They deserve to be told the truth by the men and women who advise the President. And they deserve a full accounting of how and when President Trump’s advisors colluded with a foreign power that sought to alter the outcome of an American election. For all of these reasons, President Trump should fire General Flynn."

OK, fair enough-- and Lieu and Gallego didn't even get into the sordid details which should all come out in investigations and, hopefully a trial. According to a report in the NY Times Thursday, "current and former American officials said that conversation [between Flynn and Putin's man Kislyak]-- which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor-- ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election..." Flynn is feigning memory loss in regard to what is clearly treason.

Pence's lie on Face The Nation was when he said Flynn and Kislyak "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia." But that's exactly what intelligence agency tapes of the conversation-- how dumb is Flynn not to comprehend that all Kislyak conversations are routinely monitored?-- show was talked about. At the very least, Flynn was violating the Logan Act-- and Pence was covering up for him.

Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.

The call is the latest example of how Mr. Trump’s advisers have come under scrutiny from American counterintelligence officials. The F.B.I. is also investigating Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser.

But, at the very least, openly engaging in policy discussions with a foreign government during a presidential transition is a remarkable breach of protocol. The norm has been for the president-elect’s team to respect the sitting president, and to limit discussions with foreign governments to pleasantries. Any policy discussions, even with allies, would ordinarily be kept as vague as possible.

“It’s largely shunned, period. But one cannot rule it out with an ally like the U.K.,” said Derek Chollet, who was part of the Obama transition in 2008 and then served in senior roles at the State Department, White House and Pentagon.

“But it’s way out of bounds when the said country is an adversary, and one that has been judged to have meddled in the election,” he added. “It’s just hard to imagine anyone having a substantive discussion with an adversary, particularly if it’s about trying to be reassuring.”

Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Ed Markey (D-MA) put out a similar statement to the one Lieu and Gallego put out: "There is no good way to explain today’s report that Michael Flynn was coordinating sanctions relief for Russia before his boss was inaugurated. Either Donald Trump directed his National Security Adviser to undermine U.S. foreign policy on Russia, or Michael Flynn went rogue and did it on his own. Then he either lied to the Vice President or the Vice President went on television to lie to the American people. Whatever transpired, the President needs to get his White House under control."



As if that weren't bad enough, late yesterday, Jake Tapper reported on CNN, although CNN was careful to point out that there is still no definitive proof that Trump was hiring Russian prostitutes to piss on him, the part of the story that gave the dossier the nickname, the "Golden Showers Dossier." Essentially what CNN is reporting is that intelligence agency intercepts "confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier." But there are still no publicly available tapes of the hookers pissing on Trump, who claims he's germaphobic and therefore would never allow a Russian hooker or multiple Russian hookers-- virtually all of whom are HIV positive-- to pee on him. CNN reported that "The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say," but everyone is staying mum on how many hookers pissed on Trump and if they pissed on him one at a time or they all pissed on him together at the same time. There are also some people who like being pissed on in the mouth and Trump might-- or, to be fair-- might not be one of those.

Sean Spicer is now writing lines for Melissa McCarthy to use on SNL. When CNN reached out to the regime for comments on the corroborated parts of the dossier he snarled "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting." Spicer later said CNN is reporting this as part of a conspiracy to get peoples' attention off some meeting Trump had with Japan's notoriously fascist prime minister Friday.

No one at the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA or Office of the Director of National Intelligence would comment on CNN's report or on if Americans will ever get to see the tapes of Trump being urinated on by Russian prostitutes in a notoriously bugged suite in the Ritz Carlton in Moscow two blocks from the Kremlin, where even novice travelers know that only officially-sanctioned FSB (formerly the KGB) prostitutes are allowed to ply their trade.

Currently Putin is busy arresting and in at least one case, murdering, everyone who was involved in the sordid episode. CNN reported that they were told by US intelligence officials that "some of the individuals involved in the intercepted communications were known to the US intelligence community as 'heavily involved' in collecting information damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to Donald Trump." They claim they don't know if Putin has the tapes of the hookers pissing on Trump and no one knows if the tapes are clear enough to make out definitively and whether or not you can hear what Trump is saying while the prostitutes are urinating on him. FBI and CIA agents refer to Trump's golden showers episode as "the more salacious things" in the dossier. There are rumors that Larry Flynt of Hustler-- not to be confused with Michael Flynn, a hustler-- is trying to buy the tapes from Putin.

Which Is More Out Of Control: The Proliferation Of Terror Guns Or Washington Itself?

“Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre (From Being And Nothingness)

-by Noah



On Monday, the U.S. Senate, having been shamed into it, was finally forced to vote on four gun-related measures. They were amendments to the Department of Justice spending bill, designed, not to ban guns or take guns away, as the right would have us believe, but to make it at least slightly more difficult for a potential killer, of any or no persuasion at all, to get a military grade assault rifle, a weapon of mass-destruction, in their hands. 60 votes were required to pass the measures. That didn’t happen. There was zero surprise in that. When it comes to dealing with America’s gun problem, the only true bipartisanship Washington can muster up is a 30 second moment of silence, and, of course, their prayers. How useful.



The four measures were:

1. A decidedly weak measure sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would have promoted research on the causes of mass shootings and included an increase in funding to support background checks (if we ever got them). Grassley’s measure would not have added the increasing number of gun products to the list of weapons that should require such background checks. The vote for the Grassley measure was 53-47. The only Republicans who voted against Grassley’s proposal were Sen. Mark Kirk (IL) and Sen. Cory Gardner (CO). Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN) voted in favor.

2. The second measure was sponsored by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) who launched last week’s historic 15-hour filibuster that forced Republicans to agree to a vote on the measures. It would have expanded background check requirements to include internet and private sales, and, in fact, most sales of guns. Murphy’s more positive and proactive measure was voted down by a count of 56 to 44. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Jon Testor (MT), chairman of the DSCC, joined with Republicans in defeating the Murphy measure.

3. A third measure, a relatively toothless one, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), was designed to allow law enforcement people at the federal level to delay gun sales to suspected terrorists, including those on no-fly and terrorist watch lists, for three days. Under Cornyn’s measure sales could be halted, but only if a judge ruled that there was probably cause to do so. This one failed 53 to 47. Republicans Mark Kirk (IL), Maine’s Susan Collins, and Arizona’s Jeff Flake voted against fellow Republican John Cornyn this time. Democrats Joe Manchin, who is really a Republican with a D next to his name, and Joe Donnelly joined up with the Republicans.

4. The fourth measure was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). It would have given the U.S. Attorney General the power to halt sales to suspected terrorists, thus closing the "terror loophole." Under Feinstein’s measure, a person who is turned down in their attempt to purchase a gun could appeal to the Department of Justice. Feinstein’s plan lost 53 to 47. Thanks to the Republican majority, terrorists can continue to enjoy the great American freedom of over-the-counter assault rifle purchasing. Illinois Republican Mark Kirk and New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, who are both fighting in very tough re-election campaigns, followed the polling and joined with the Democrats on this one. North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp joined with Republicans and voted against it.

The end result of the defeat of the four measures is that a person who is on a terrorist watch list or no-fly list will still be able to buy a handy, easy to use, weapon of mass-destruction. You can go buy one today, "no questions asked." There will be no change in the status of background checks.

Let’s look at it this way: If the horror of dead blood-splashed, bullet-shredded six year old boys and girls in Newtown, Connecticut didn’t motivate the Republican majority to vote for saner policies on gun proliferation, you didn’t really expect the sight of 49 dead gay and Latino people in a gay club in Orlando, Florida to move them, did you?

No, instead they just mouthed the tired script about how killers will always find a way to kill so, you know, why limit guns when they’d just find something else anyway. Well, yeah, I also believe that killers will always find a way but, unlike the Republican Party, I don’t think we should make it so easy for them and just hand them an instrument of mass destruction. Anyone can pull a trigger. Not everyone can build a bomb. Hell, they might even blow themselves up trying, like Sarah Palin’s secessionist buddy Joe Vogler did.

Righties will also tell you that a terrorist can kill you with a blade but comparing a knife to an AR-15 or the like may just be the ultimate false equivalency, at least until you can find someone who can dish out 600 to 1200 stab wounds per minute in a crowded club or theatre, or first grade classroom. Such is the “logic” that Republicans use to defeat sensible gun policies.

Republicans don’t just like guns. They worship gun culture. Assault rifles are Republican Viagra. The next time you see a crowd of obviously sexually insecure and sexually frustrated men on TV, shooting off their machine guns in the air and screaming at the top of their lungs about god and freedom, look closely, it may not be a scene of crazies from the Middle East. It’s just as likely that it’s a scene of Republican senators and representatives outside the U.S. Capitol building. We should call these people ammosexuals.

I’ve often thought that it was only a matter of time before some Republican politician somewhere started offering coupons for gun purchases in return for contributions to his or her campaign. Greg Evers, a candidate for Congress from the Florida Panhandle, no less, has come close. He is using an AR-15 giveaway to get people to his Facebook page, while people are still in critical condition in Orlando area hospitals.

Does it get anymore tasteless and insensitive? Even for a politician?

Republican $enators have once again chosen the dark side; the side they are comfortable with, not just morally but financially. What they have done is they have once again voted for their pocket books and not for the lives of their constituents. They are the puppets of the NRA and the gun makers. The NRA’s Chris Cox (see youtube clip above) has made it plain that the NRA will, once again, be spending millions in the upcoming election.

Mitch McConnell’s team has done this heinous and crooked act despite polls that show that even a large percentage of Republican voters, of all people, want at least some measure of positive action on our nation’s gun problems. Total national support for background checks is now at 92% with 86% of Republican voters in favor! So, ask this simple question: Just who are Republican $enators representing, and, just who are their House counterparts representing?

The only possible answer has nothing to do with the Constitution or representation of the people. No, the answer is the very best measure of the level of corruption that we have in Washington, DC. We all know; anyone with a tenth of a working brain knows, that our politicians are bought and sold.

It’s about the money, of course. When voters want their $enators and alleged representatives to do something smart about making it harder for crazies of all kinds to buy not just one but multiple assault rifles and all the ammo they can carry for those rifles, and yet, Washington does nothing but sit on its own thumbs, the gravy train of bribery money from the NRA and gun manufacturers has to be the biggest reason why the grief continues and continues. These are not good people. They are among the worst America has to offer.

Monday’s votes did not go the moral way. Even if they had, the measures were only a small start and the sign of the beast will still be strong with Republican senators.

Constituents supported the measures but cash from the NRA means so much more, when you are a bought and sold scumbag.

Since Orlando, Republicans have also taken the disingenuous approach of only talking about mass killings done by Muslims. They, like their NRA masters, have tried to make the Orlando massacre a political tool, blaming President Obama, “The government” and Hillary Clinton. As you can see again with the NRA’s Chris Cox in the Youtube clip from NRA News that I provided above, the Orlando massacre is being used not to address your local crazy getting his or her hands on an AR-15 but to try to drive Republican voters to the polls. The specter of HRC getting to name Supreme Court judges who might not do the NRA’s bidding is being raised non-stop.

One $enator, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, didn’t blame inadequate gun policies for the Orlando massacre. Instead, he said President Obama directly caused the Orlando attack. He didn’t bother to mention that Obama’s predecessor got rid of the one man who was able to, however brutally, keep a lid on those who would become ISIS when we invaded Iraq on his lies.

Nor has McCain or any other Republican mentioned the death of the assault weapons ban. Mixed reviews of its effectiveness in reducing crime or not, the one thing that is certain is that a hell of a lot of assault weapons have been sold in this country since the ban was allowed to lapse under George W. Bush in 2004. ISIS has even told its followers to go to America because it’s now so easy to get an assault rifle.

Reinstating a ban might not prevent every attack. Assault rifles were banned in France but that didn’t stop the horror in Paris. But, again, why make it easy? Even if only 2 out of 10 attacks are stopped, that’s some American families that get spared a lot of lifelong grief.

Like the vast majority of his party colleagues, John McCain is not a profile in courage. He is not hero in politics. His legacy and that of his party will be that of failed and flawed weasels everywhere.

Republicans have failed to mention terror acts done by Christian extremists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh or Olympic bomber Robert Alan Rudolph, or those who have blown up clinics. There’s also been no mention from Republicans of the movie theatre killings in Aurora, Colorado or the countless other attacks on gay bars that Muslims had nothing to do with. One of those that comes to mind has to be the fire bombing of The UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans on June 24, 1973. 32 people died in that one.

As a contrast in character, here is a statement from another man who wishes he were President. Here’s Senator Bernie Sanders’ statement on the latest failure of the U.S. Senate to do the right thing.

Frankly, these Democratic amendments are no-brainers. It is incomprehensible to me, and I believe to the vast majority of Americans and I believe to the vast majority of Americans, as to why Republicans would oppose them.

Senator Feinstein’s and Senator Murphy’s proposals are commonsense. In light of the terrible tragedies that have taken place in Orlando and other cities, it is not very hard to understand that terrorists or potential terrorists, criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not have access to guns. We have got to do everything we can to stop guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them.

Senator Elizabeth Warren had this to say: "If we fail to act, the next time someone uses a gun to kill one of us, a gun that we could have kept out of the hands of a terrorist, then members of this Congress will have blood on our hands."

Sorry, Senator Warren. You are one of the few that I hold in high esteem, but Congress already has blood on its hands, lots of it.

A rational person has to ask: How many mass-shootings will it take before Washington does the right thing. Maybe the better question is not how many will it take but which victims will it take to change Washington. Would a crazed gunman shooting up NRA headquarters even if the staff “good guys” all had guns make a difference? One gets the idea that even a mad gunman attack in the Senate or House wouldn’t overcome the power of money in their corruption.

Perhaps the Republican Party should just borrow this quote from Sartre as a motto for their upcoming convention: “It is certain that we cannot escape anguish, for we are anguish.”

With A Chance To Start Another Catastrophic War Looming, Republicans Let Tom Cotton Out Of His Cage

This week marked the 70th anniversary of the atomic attack on Hiroshima. A year earlier an American poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese men, women, and children and after the bombing another poll, this one for Fortune, found that, despite Japan's surrender, 22.7% of respondents wished that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan. At least 150,000 people died in Hiroshima, included over 90% of the city's doctors and nurses.

Now, finally, those who would have liked to see more atomic bombs dropped finally have a voice, albeit a psychotic one, advocating for nuclear war. Arkansas extremist Senator Tom Cotton was born over 30 years after Hiroshima, and apparently he's pissed off that he missed the fireworks. He reacted badly to President Obama's chat yesterday about the deal his administration helped work out between Iran and the rest of the world-- which you can watch in its entirety in the video above or read in part here:

Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real. With all of the threats that we face today, it’s hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time.

In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued that we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young President offered a different vision. Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a “practical” and “attainable peace”-- a peace “based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.”

Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully. Under Democratic and Republican Presidents, new agreements were forged-- a Non-Proliferation Treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy; the SALT and START Treaties which bound the United States and Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control. Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.

The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems; it certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives.  As such, it is a very good deal.

Today, I want to speak to you about this deal, and the most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough, or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should-- for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

...Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend.

The question, then, is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options-- including possible military options-- on the table to achieve that objective. But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue-- not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution.

And so, in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordow.

Now, some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause, and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions. Keep in mind unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new U.N. Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements from nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.

Winning this global buy-in was not easy-- I know.  I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war, with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East. In other words, it was diplomacy-- hard, painstaking diplomacy-- not saber-rattling, not tough talk that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran.

...Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy-water reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, and replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors for at least 15 years.

Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordow facility, which is buried deep underground, for at least 15 years. Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs, for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon.

And, in fact, this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past. There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain-- from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials, to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important: For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or a covert facility like Fordow. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.

And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpile. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own. On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow.

So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives-– this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors-- who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents-- support it. I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.

Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grabbing sound bites. And so before the ink was even dry on this deal-- before Congress even read it-- a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition.  Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists, disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple-- and sometimes contradictory-- arguments about why Congress should reject this deal. But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.

First, there are those who say the inspections are not strong enough because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.

Well, here’s the truth: Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access, even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice. And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. And by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet. It can leave a trace for years. The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them-- and we will.

Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years. Let me repeat: The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent. It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT Treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START Treaty lasted 15 years. And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond, and the same options available to stop a weapons program as we have today, including-- if necessary-- military options.

On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.

Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Now, let’s be clear: The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That's the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief. So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue.

...[I]f we’re serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we're concerned about directly: By helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber-attack or a ballistic missile; by improving the interdiction of weapons shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah; by training our allies’ special forces so that they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen. All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. And, by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.

Now, the final criticism-- this sort of a catch-all that you may hear-- is the notion that there’s a better deal to be had. “We should get a better deal”-- that’s repeated over and over again. “It's a bad deal, need a better deal”-- one that relies on vague promises of toughness, and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder.

Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they’re just not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure-- even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That oftentimes is what the critics are calling “a better deal.”  Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.

Moreover, our closest allies in Europe, or in Asia-- much less China or Russia-- certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress. Because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power. And it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress’s rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling. If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world.

...So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war-- maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we’ve spent so many years building.

Now, there are some opponents-- I have to give them credit; there are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless. But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.

After Cotton's hissy fit, Greg Sargent reminded his Washington Post readers:

Cotton has an undeniable talent for injecting himself into foreign policy debates in ways that garner maximum media attention-- and deafening accolades from the Conservative Entertainment Complex. He also has an undeniable talent for helping his opponents build support for their case.

Sargent was referring to the extremely undiplomatic letter Cotton sent to the Iranian government in the middle of negotiations claiming that "a negotiated nuclear deal would not be binding on the next president." This time Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) took to the Senate floor and put Cotton's crazy remarks into context and into the unflattering light of reality.

Senator Cotton said this week that we could bomb Iran back to day zero if we took a military route to divorcing Iran from a nuclear weapon. Let’s get back to reality for a second about what a military strike would mean. You can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a series of years, but you cannot bomb Iran back to day zero unless you are also prepared to assassinate everyone in Iran who has worked on the nuclear program. Why? Because you can’t destruct knowledge. You can’t remove entirely from that country the set of facts that got them within two to three months of a nuclear weapon.

And so I know that members bristle at this notion that the president is suggesting it’s a choice between an agreement or war. But there are members of this body who are openly cheerleading for military engagement with Iran, who are oversimplifying the effect of military action, who are blind to the reality of U.S. military activity in that region over the course of the last 10 to 15 years. This belief in the omnipotent, unfailing power of the U.S. military is simply not based in reality. We could set back the nuclear program for a series of years, but the consequences to the region would be catastrophic.

Worth mentioning that 4 Democratic shills for AIPAC, all afraid of their own shadows-- Nita Lowey (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), Kathleen Rice (D-NY) and Ted Deutch (D-FL)-- have teamed up with the Republicans trying to block the deal, claiming that, as Sargent put it, "the deal is not tough enough and carries too many risks, without bothering to bring up their preferred alternatives for what’s next."

But Cotton has helpfully clarified-- in a back door way-- that if the deal gets blocked, that, too, would bring a whole host of unpleasant consequences, including, possibly, war. Hopefully the remaining undecided Democrats will pay attention to the wisdom of the good Senator from Arkansas.

Tom is always ready for war